Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Jha and Reuben JJ.
Ram Ranbijaya Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar Through Collector Of Shahabad
Appeal from Original Decree No. 231 of 1945 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 07, 1950
CESS ACT, 1880 - REVALUATION - ASSESSMENT OF CESS - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - CESS REVALUATION SCHEDULE - BINDING EFFECT ON TENURE-HOLDERS - CLASSIFICATION OF TENANCIES - LIABILITY FOR CESS.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the proprietor of three estates, challenged the assessment of cess on one of the estates on the grounds that the Collector included among the assets of the estate properties lying outside the limits of the estate and that cess was not assessed on the Narhi Babus, who were tenants of the estate. The suit was dismissed in limine as not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80, Civil P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable as against the Province of Bihar because the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., was not served on the Province in the manner prescribed by the law. The court also held that the suit failed on merits as against the Province of Bihar because the mistake in the assessment of cess did not affect the jurisdiction of the Collector and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the mistake. The court further held that the suit also failed as against the Narhi Babus because the cess revaluation schedule was not binding upon them as it related to a tenure of which they were not the tenure-holders.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable as against the Province of Bihar? 2. Whether the suit failed on merits as against the Province of Bihar? 3. Whether the suit also failed as against the Narhi Babus?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was not maintainable as against the Province of Bihar because the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., was not served on the Province in the manner prescribed by the law. The court observed that the notice was served on the Collector of Shahabad, who was not the proper person to receive the notice on behalf of the Province. 2. The court held that the suit failed on merits as against the Province of Bihar because the mistake in the assessment of cess did not affect the jurisdiction of the Collector and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the mistake. The court observed that the Collector had the jurisdiction to ascertain the annual value of the plaintiff's estate and that the mistake in ascertaining the value did not render the valuation invalid. The court also observed that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the mistake because he would have been liable to pay the same total amount of cess in respect of other estates as the excess cess which he had to pay in respect of the estate in question. 3. The court held that the suit also failed as against the Narhi Babus because the cess revaluation schedule was not binding upon them as it related to a tenure of which they were not the tenure-holders. The court observed that the evidence suggested that there were, in fact, several tenancies, the total rent of which was represented by the sum of Rs. 10,000 shown in the revaluation schedule, and that the court did not have the materials to determine whether those tenancies or which of them, were tenures or holdings within the meaning of the Cess Act, 1880.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs throughout to the State of Bihar.
Reuben, J.
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Arrah, dismissing Title suit No. 27/3 of 1938-43.
2. The appellant is the proprietor of three estates, Umarpur Diara, tauzi No. 1455, Sarwanpur, tauzi No. 14229, and Belsipah, tauzi No. 14230, borne on the revenue roll of the district of Shababad. Since a long time there were disputes occurring between the Babus of Narhi, now represented by the defendants second party, and the proprietors of the Damraon Raj, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant. Finally, in 1907 an agreement was arrived at through the intervention of the local Government officers, by which the Narhi Babus agreed to pay Rs. 10,000, as rent to the Dumraon Raj as tenants of lands lying in villages Rai Kishunpatti, Sarwanpur, Palia, Belsipah, Kulharia, and Sahpur, the amount to be realised by the Collector of Shahabad and to be paid by him to the proprietor of Dumraon Raj. The agreement was confirmed by a subsequent proprietor, Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur, with certain modifications and is still in force. In the year 1932, in the course of revaluation proceedings under the Cess Act, 1880 (Bengal Act IX [9] of 1880), cess was assessed on tauzi No. 1455 on an asset value of Rs. 76,428-16-0, which included the sum of Rs. 10,000 payable as rent by the Narbi Babus.
3. The present suit was brought by the appellant challenging the assessment as ultra vires on the grounds ; (i) that the villages in respect of which the rent of Rupees 10,000 is payable do not lie wholly in tauzi No. 1455, but are distributed among the three tauzis of which the appellant is the proprietor, and (2) that cess was not assessed on the Narbi Babus and seeking to recover with interest an amount of Rs. 21,664-15-0 realised by the Government from the appellant on account of the cess demand for tauzi No. 1455 for the period June 1932 to January 1936. Among other reliefs, the appellant asked:
"That a decree for refund of the amount with damages claimed and future damage be passed in favour of the plaintiff or decree for such amount as the Court thinks proper be passed against defendant 1 or defendant 2nd party."
The plaint was filed on 22nd September 1938 and the Government was impleaded as defendant 1 thus : "Secretary of State for India in Council through the Collector of Shahabad."
4 Under Sec.179, Government of India Act, 1935, and Section 79, Civil P. C., as adapted by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937, the suit should have been filed either against the Province of Bihar or the Secretary of State. Under Section 80, Civil P. C., as adapted, the notice under Section 80 was required to be served in the former case on a Secretary to the Provincial Government or the Collector of the district and, in the latter case, on a Secretary to the Central Government, the Political Secretary and a Secretary to the Provincial Government. In the present case, the notice under Section 80 was served on the Collector of Shahabad. The mistake in impleading the Government under the proper appellation was not corrected till 15th December 1941, when the bearing of the suit had actually been concluded and the case was being argued. The suit them proceeded against the Province of Bihar.
5. In the result, the learned Subordinate-Judge, while holding the assessment to be ultra vires by reason that the Collector included among the assets of the estate properties lying outside the limits of the estate, felt himself constrained to dismiss the suit in limine as not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 Civil P. C.
6. It has been strenuously contested before us that the notice under Section 80 which was served on the Collector of Shahabad must be taken as a valid notice on the Province of Bihar under Section 80 on the ground that, substantially, the plaintiff made clear his intention to sue the Province of Bihar, and that the written statement filed by the Collector
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
